Home
» Intelligent Design » ID “a branch of creationism” – Adam Rutherford from Nature
ID “a branch of creationism” – Adam Rutherford from Nature
| November 7, 2008 | Posted by idnet.com.au under Intelligent Design |
Adam Rutherford from Nature shows he is blinded even to an understanding of the difference between ID and creationism. In his teacher’s TV rant he calls for the re-education of the 18% of UK science teachers not convinced that Darwinism has, in his words, “withstood all attacks”.
Commenting on the same survey, UK Daily Telegraph defines ID as “the theory that the universe shows signs of having been designed rather than evolving”
In their failure to even grasp the basic definition of ID, these people are, the words of Richard Dawkins, “either stupid, ignorant or dare I say it, evil.”
32 Responses to ID “a branch of creationism” – Adam Rutherford from Nature
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post, gpuccio
@gpuccio
#the similar nature of the
#information is many human
#artifacts”
So humans designed life?
#it is (functionally) specified;
#it cannot be the product of
#known laws of necessity
Irreducible Compexity (AKA God of the Gaps/Argument From Ignorance)? How do you know that it cannot?
#These are the facts: simple,
#incontrovertible. I have never
#found any serious refutation
#of these things.
But those are not facts at all. They are mere assertions with no supporting evidence or argument.
#unguided mechanisms
#(typically RV + NS)
Natural Selection is not unguided.
#Because RV can never
#produce CSI.
If by “RV” you mean “random variation”, you are basically setting up a straw man here. Why do you insist on ignoring NS when it’s convenient for your argument?
Furthermore, you have not demonstrated CSI. All you have is a number of assertions.
#it is complex (probability
#of the functional target
#vs the whole search
#space < 1:10^150)
This is another straw man which makes the assumption that everything happened in one single huge step.
#NS could succeed (scarcely)
#only if every single step of
#bitlike variation (or at least
#the vast majority of them)
#could bear a selectable
#advantage and be fixed.
This is yet another false assertions. Most mutations are neutral, some are advantageous. Those that are detrimental are likely do disappear because it puts the life form at a disadvantage.
#Complex information is not
#the accumulation of sigle
#step increases of information.
Yet another false assertion. Gene duplication and mutation to the duplicated gene will lead to the genes being different over time.
#Is darwinian evoloution a
#scientific theory? Yes, it is.
#Why? Because it is falsifiable.
#Has ID falsified it? You bet.
As I have demonstrated, you have not falsified. At best, you have falsified a straw man.
#So, do you agree that the
#negative part of ID “is”
#definitely science?
No, as it is apparently based on false claims and groundless assertions.
#But you cannot say that a
#theory which falsifies anothe
#theory is beyond the
#boundaries of science.
There is no “theory of ID”. Even the DI admits and leading ID proponents admit that.
#We have already noticed
#the “fact” that the same
#kind of information is
#observable in biological
#information, in human
#designed artifacts (or at
#least in part of them),
#and nowhere else.
Another groundless assertion. And are you saying that there is human design in life forms? Really?
#So, the final hypothesis
#of ID
I thought you said it was a theory?
#But not more than believing
#in the existence of laws of
#nature, or in the existence
#of matter and energy, or in
#the value of nathemathics
#or inference or statistics.
#All those positions have a
#bit of philosophy in them.
#But nobody has ever
#considered those
#assumptions “beyond the
#boundaries of science”.
Another false assertion. The laws of nature are not assumptions. They are testable models.
#please explain how a design
#can come out without a
#conscious designer
You have yet to show design in life. Apparently you claim human design, but I doubt that you think humans created all life on earth.
#Billions of examples of CSI,
#of intricated design,
#without any possible
#explanation.
Appeal to Ignorance/God of the Gaps, or argument from personal incredulity again. You may not know about the explanations, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, and that no one else knows.
#I have not even started
#to address the problem of
#abiogenesis.
I somehow doubt that you know anything about it, since you don’t even seem to know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis
#the immense quantity of
#things with the properties
#of design in pre-human
#eras (biological beings)
In other words, humans designed life? Or God is human?
#Let’s say that I have not
#used the concept of IC
#until now.
That’s because IC has already been refuted. And IC is a fallacy anyway. More appeal to ignorance/God of the gaps.